The level of skill afforded to the hypothetical ordinary person has been heightened since KSR. Actions such as reversing the order of operations with no practical effect are deemed to be within the creativity of one skilled in the art, especially when the technology is easily understandable.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from the PTAB is directed to a method for an ATM machine by which a customer’s attempt to overdraw their account or withdraw an amount that would put them below a minimum balance requirement triggers a process of qualifying the customer for a short-term loan from the bank or credit union, proposing the loan terms to the customer, and, if the customer agrees to the terms, making the loan proceeds available on the spot. In this regard, certain claims recite that the loan offer is triggered by a request to withdraw an amount that is “less than the account’s available cash [but] would reduce the account’s available cash below a threshold amount.” The prior art, by contrast, involves an overdraft remediation scheme in which the bank acts only after a balance has fallen below a threshold amount to remedially raise the balance to or above the minimum account value.
Issue(s): Whether it would have been obvious to perform the prior art’s disclosed remediation techniques proactively before the transaction goes though and before the account balance actually falls below a threshold amount as claimed.
Holding(s): Yes. “Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would have known to modify the method disclosed in [the prior art] by reversing the order of outgoing and incoming transactions.” Quoting KSR, the court reminded us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Moreover, where, as here, “the references and the invention are easily understandable,” the Board did not err “by relying on its ‘common sense’ to make such a determination.”